I think this is not necessarily true any longer. The main point I'll
make is the better CCD scanners can cover the entire density range of
a color neg with adequate resolution to capture all the image detail
in most photographs, even those produced by expert photographers.
There are exceptions to this, but in general, for scanning color negs,
it's safe to say going to a drum will not result in an appreciably
better scan other things being equal (operator experience for
example). In fact, the opportunity for experts to make critical
decisions during scanning may result in higher quality scans.
Nancy Scans do excellent work judging by what I've seen, and getting
to that level of expertise for the average photographer isn't
necessarily easy, but it is possible. Software is also extremely
important in scan quality, and Vuescan has the most accurate color neg
conversions I've seen so far. Thank God (and Ed:) for small favors.
If the scanner will cover the entire density range of the film, and
resolution is adequate, and the software and operator are adequate,
there is no reason CCD scanning cannot equal or better drums. We are
at that point of parity with color negs since the advent of such CCD
scanners as the Flextight and even the better 35mm "prosumer" units,
and it's getting less expensive as time goes on also.
Dave King
----- Original Message -----
From: John Straus <Mail@SlideOne.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor
insharpness?
> Don't think that these $800-3000 scanner toys we are using are the
best it
> will get or the best that is out there. If you have an image that is
that
> "good" get a drum scan from Nancy Scans (11,000 dpi?) or somewhere.
If your
> output only needs to be average then you can settle for average
input
> (photographic lenses). In the long run we are still far away from
maximizing
> what is scanned from what is on the slide or negative especially
with the
> consumer scanners were using.
>
> I am not saying you can't get good results and sell work using these
> scanners but lenses and film are more of a high quality constant
than the
> digital age we have just begun to get into.
> --
> John
> Chicago, IL
>
> ====================
>
>
> on 11/6/01 5:30 PM, Rob Geraghty at harper@wordweb.com wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking of spending a whole bunch
> > of dollars on new lenses. If the difference isn't going to be
significant
> > in the scanned results, then I have lots of other things I need to
spend
> > money on.
>
